Taking Exception (III)

As tiresome as it is, this idea that Barack Obama, of all people, is not an adherent of American exceptionalism is strangely popular. Perhaps it helps some people sleep better at night–I don’t get it. Have these people already forgotten Obama’s Inaugural Address, which even Bill Kristol admitted was “unabashedly pro-American”? Maybe they haven’t, but they hope that you have. Here is Mark Davis in The Dallas Morning News:

Where is the curriculum that teaches that beyond our flaws, we have been the greatest society the world has known? We have built that legacy with a devotion to liberty and leadership unmatched in modern times. Yet we are led today by people who see the United States as merely the name between Ukraine and Uruguay on the United Nations lobby directory [bold mine-DL].

This other “curriculum” is force-fed to us daily, not least through op-eds, articles, books and talk shows that seem to tell us nothing else. Of course, it is also delivered to us in public speeches by the very politicians who are now being accused of lacking in exceptionalist zeal. Obama’s Inaugural is one example, and one could mine the archives of his campaign speeches for ridiculous flourishes of American exceptionalism, which is why I have always marveled at the easily disproven misrepresentation of Obama as anything other than an American exceptionalist.

Then again, compared to Mark Davis, who can be anything but a post-American tranzi wallowing in the mire of his own self-loathing? Consider Davis’ simply ridiculous declaration:

What we used to widely feel has been given a fitting name: American exceptionalism. It does not teach that we are without sin or that we cannot learn. It teaches that against the backdrop of history, no country has freed, fed or inspired more people than the United States. No nation has contributed more to science, culture or enlightened thought [bold mine-DL].

It is the last sentence that seems particularly galling, since our contributions to “science, culture and enlightened thought” have been by and large derivatives of European contributions, and for the most part our contributions have been built on the foundations laid by European nations. That doesn’t mean that we haven’t made a great many important contributions, but like the bizarre fetish of tallying uphow many of our soldiers have died for the freedom of other nations there is something unseemly, gawdy and arrogant in this constant call for others to recognize how magnificent and preeminent we are. It is this insufferable insistence on being first, best and supreme in everything that so many people find irritating, and not only in other countries. If the patriot never boasts of the largeness of his country, what does that make the American exceptionalist who can never shut up about how absolutely gigantic and awesome his country is?

Davis is not done:

Today, that magnificent view is dismissed as tired jingoism.

No, tired jingoism is dismissed as tired jingoism. The trouble is that some people seem to think that unless one signs off on every aspect of the tired jingoism, one is therefore automatically opposed to American exceptionalism. There are good reasons to push back against the idea of American exceptionalism, if only because it does seem to encourage tired jingoism far too often, but we should do this mainly to show that there is the possibility of an admiring respect that need not devolve into arrogant triumphalism that American exceptionalism tends to encourage.

Of course, having defined American exceptionalism in such an excessive way, Davis has all but guaranteed that fewer and fewer people will be interested in it. Confidence in America and respect for our actual, genuinely considerable accomplishments as a people are natural and worthy attitudes to have. Understanding the full scope of our history, neither airbrushing out the crimes nor dishonoring and forgetting our heroes, is the proper tribute we owe to our country and our ancestors. Exaggeration and bluster betray a lack of confidence in America, and strangely this lack of confidence seems concentrated among those most certain that mostly imaginary “declinists” are ruining everything. More humble confidence and less horror that our President is not engaged in stupid demonstrations of machismo might be the appropriate response to present realities.

P.S. For a necessary dose of sanity, here is Andrew Bacevich on “the American century.”

Update: A quote from an old column by a Canadian writer seems appropriate here:

Now, I don’t want to answer dogma with dogma. Strategic and national interests played major roles in the decisions of all combatants in the First and Second World Wars. They do in every war. It’s a messy world and the motives of nations are seldom simple and pure.

The sort of Americans who cheer for Fred Thompson would agree with that statement — as it applies to other countries. What they cannot seem to accept is that it applies to their country, too. For them, Americans are unique. The United States is unique. And what sets America and Americans apart is purity of heart.

“We are proud of that heritage,” Thompson said in Iowa after citing the mythology of America-the-liberator. “I don’t think we have anything to apologize for.”

Nothing to apologize for. Never did anything wrong in 231 years of history. Nothing.

This is infantile. And dangerous. A superpower that believes it is pure of heart and the light of the world will inevitably rush in where angels fear to tread. And then it will find itself wondering why the foreigners it so selflessly helps hate it so.

Yes, but compared to Bush and co. Obama’s take on American exceptionalism is rather (I don’t want to say watered down) but at least somewhat more humble. And besides, as the leader of the nation he has a delicate rope to walk – balancing humility and pride and the proper rhetoric to sustain each.

Is there really any serious difference between this kind of American exceptionalism, and the imperial, evangelical Christian exceptionalism we’ve been discussing in the other thread below? Aren’t they of very much the same nature, and isn’t American exceptionalism directly derived from, if mutated into democratic politics, the Christian exceptionalism of our early colonial forebears, and the general messianic fervor that is Christianity itself? As you readily admit, many Christians consider Christianity the one and only truth, incapable of error in either tradition or scripture, the great force that will save the world, never needing to apologize for anything, but always looking to be admired and revered as the greatest of all truths, and ultimately the only truth and the only way of life (with some indulgence for regional cultural manifestations and differences)?

One finds a similar kind of crass jingoism in the Christian exceptionalism of most of the very same people espousing jingoistic American exceptionalism. And even where it is not crassly jingoisti, Christian exceptionalism is very much accepted without question by a great many Christians, certainly a large majority, just as American exceptionalism is very much excepted even by moderates, liberals, and the more laid back patriots like Obama. Can this really be mere coincidence in what so many claim is a “Christian nation”?

conradg – the problem I have with your argument is that you seem to be conflating all kinds of Christianity together. Clearly there is a link between evangelical Christianity and the idea of America as the exceptional nation. But of course, not all American Christianity is “messianic fervor”, just as not all American patriotism is blind to the faults and failings of American history. For those Christians who remember to render unto Caesar, the fact that Christianity is “the great force that will save the world” does not necessitate an imperialist crusade to spread the word – indeed it may well encourage a profound scepticism towards all such vain and worldly pursuits.

Matt – I don’t mean to conflate. There are plenty of Christians who don’t subscirbe to “exceptionalism”, they just choose Christianity because it feels right to them. But there has always been a prominent contingent of Christians who have moved with messianic fervor – that is how Christianity spread in the first place, not by kindly Church of England pastors having the locals over for tea. I certainly acknowledge those Christians who refuse the temptations of Caesar and worldly power and glory. But they have not been the moving force of Christianity, sorry to say. And even among that crowd, there is still the basic belief in Christian exceptionalism. Isn’t that the basic Christian message – that Jesus is the one and only son of God given to man for the sake of its salvation? What could be a more exceptionalist message than that? My point is that America has borrowed that very notion of exceptionalism for its own civic religion, in part due to the large number of Christians who have formed its populace and leaders, and in part simply by absorbing the attractiveness of feeling oneself to be exceptional, which bleeds from Christian culture into its politics as well, even if one isn’t a fervent Christian with missionary zeal.

But I agree that Christianity itself does not necessitate an imperial crusade to spread the word. In fact, I consider that counter to the real import of Jesus’ life and work. Just as I disagree with the way in which American exceptionalism is so often wielded by its advocates, even though I consider myself a patriotic American. But I have to be realistic about the history and impact of these exceptionalist movements.

Conradg, the concept of “political religion” may be what you’re looking for. As religion’s hold over a population tends to lessen, countries, movements, and governments turn to political religions which basically take the form of Christianity, transposed onto some political symbol. The American variation is actually one of the least offensive of these, compared to the volk or proletariat-as-messiah.

Although, America-as-global-messiah seems to misinterpret both the best parts of American political thought as well as Christianity, as it tends to be based on exertion of militaristic power. At least the Poles who compared their nation to Jesus in the 19th century had the concept of death, redemption, and rebirth in there somewhere.

conradg – I appreciate your point about a prominent contingent of Christians. But as far as the basic belief in Christian exceptionalism, isn’t this true of any religion, any ideological movement? Surely the concept of exceptionalism is to some extent inherent to belief – you are not a believer if you don’t find your beliefs superior to others.
Equally, I’m not absolutely convinced that all evangelical Christians are necessarily believers in American exceptionalism. Obviously there is a prominent strand of evangelical thought associated with Bush and the GOP in recent years which thinks this way. But to what extent is this inherent to their faith and to what extent is it a product of their political affiliation? A case could be made that evangelicals support Iraq and neoconservative foreign policy because Bush, who they originally supported for his social program, drew them along with him.

The more nuanced phenomenon that you are all missing is the cultivation and propagation of military exceptionalism by the Bush administration. Under Bush, the military was transformed from a fighting and killing machine into an omnipotent force for good. And by constantly self reinforcing that message of universal competence and heroism in front of military audiences, Bush essentially sanctified the martial experience. Only the military is competent to do good things across every geopolitical domain.

The result of Bush’s hagiographic admiration for the military, being called a hero no longer required a heroic act, it only requires wearing a uniform. And the new universality of military competence means that military power is equally effective at nation building as it is at killing and destroying. And this notion of military exceptionalism is suffused throughout the neoconservative narrative.

Probably most Americans thought that America was exceptional even immediately after the Vietnam war. But because there was a shared understanding then that the military is primarily a killing machine, the inclination to employ military power in pursuit of expansive foreign policy objectives was properly and prudently attenuated.

SteveM, the military has never been a “fighting and killing machine” in its history, except for our illegal incursion into Iraq and other covert stuff like Iran-Contra in the 80s.

Bush, et al. have amplified the “politics as religion” behavior to dog whistle levels. Although Americans were ashamed of the quagmire that was the Vietnam War and our graceless exit, Americans have always gone to war with the heart in the right place. As for Iraq, we were lied to and the press didn’t do its job to vet the garbage that was floated as the excuse to invade Iraq.

Indya, and the military trains, they a train to kill and destroy. They engage in “wargames”, not “nation building games.” When fighter pilots talk shop sitting in a bar a comment on “dropping bombs on target”. That’s what they do for a living, kill and destroy. That makes them part of a killing machine. I’m not knocking that. A strong competent military is absolutely required. What I’m saying is that when the political class wildly expands the boundaries of military competence, it becomes an invitation to use it in ways that are not politically intelligent. And that is bad for the country and bad for a military that is paradoxically co-opted by the exceptionalism argument.

With Bush and then the neoconservatives, the military is viewed as a universal hammer and everything else is a nail.

“as far as the basic belief in Christian exceptionalism, isnâ€™t this true of any religion, any ideological movement? Surely the concept of exceptionalism is to some extent inherent to belief – you are not a believer if you donâ€™t find your beliefs superior to others.”

This is actually a common fallacy, understandly influenced by our own experience of a predominantly Christian culture, in which religious exceptionalism is often taken to an extreme. The truth is that the Abrahamic monotheistic tradition is the exception, not the rule, as far as the world’s religions go. Most religions do not put themselves forwards as the one and only true faith, or their God as the one and only true God. There are thousands and thousands of different religions in the world, and almost none of them take the extreme view of Abrahamic monotheism. Buddhism, Hinduism, Shamanism on every continent, Taoism, Confucionism, you name it, almost all of them refrain from promoting themselves as the best of al possible religions, or the only true one. The principle is perhaps best exemplified in Hinduism, which considers virtually all religions to be manifestations of the same Absolute Divine Reality, and all Gods and Avatars to be merely one of the many millions and billions of possible “faces” of the Divine. They consider Jesus and Buddha to be “avatars” in the same respect that their Rama and Krishna are. They simply acknowledge that everyone has their own “Ishta”, or chosen image of the Divine, and they all should be respected on that basis, with no single image or God considered inherently superior to any other.

The Abrahamic faiths, however, break with this view, and with the notion of having local, chosen Gods that exemplify something about one’s own individuality, locality, or tribe. They elevate their own tribal Gods into absolute and universal status, rather than seeing them as one of many possible manifestations of the absolute. One might say they twist these notions, combining the notion of an absolute Dvinity with the identification with a local Divinity. Very few religions have ever taken that step. Everyone of course tends to favor their own local, chosen Gods and values and traditions, but few take the step of assuming that their local tradition is the one and only true tradition, and should supplant all others, and is the one best suited for everyone in the world, or even the only true way to achieve communion with the Divine. One has to point out, of course, how successful taking that step has been for both Christianity and Islam, in terms of sheer numbers, but this is often because once one takes that aggressive stance of superiority towards all others, a militant conquest is usually not far behind. In my view, this debases the virtues of the original religious tradition, and turns it into a dangerous cult. This is rather obvious if one looks at the history of Islam and Christianity, both of which promoted and spread themselves through military force and state exclusivity. And we see the same military aggression in America’s own brand of quasi-religious exceptionalism, which sees its own military conquests as examples of virtue rather than aggression, and any faults that might occur along the way as signs of corruption rather than as expressions of the fault at the core of our self-inflated views. And we tend to imagine that all countries consider themselves the best and greatest, even while we assume that only we are the best and greatest. But this simply isn’t true. WIth the exception of Nazi Germany, Ancient Greece and Imperial Rome, not many countries seriously entertain such inflated fantasies about themselves. Those that do tend towards extreme militarism that they themselves see as merely natural expressions of their greatness, but others can quickly recognize as a pathological trait dangerous to the rest of the world.

SteveM, the military trains to kill because that is what they do, but as far as the public perception of the military goes, it is not a “killing machine,” except in the mind of pacifists. I am ex-Army, by the way.

Indya, that is the problem. The Bush administration expanded the military mission by ascribing it unique competence to address every other non-destructive mission. Under that rubric the military is uniquely moral, heroic and skilled. That’s what the neocons believe. I have a feeling that you believe that too.

I’m not a pacifist, I just happen to consider the military’s tool set, (weapon systems), its configuration and training and then draw the proper inference about what kind of machine it is.

Yes, I said there were a few others. I don’t think China or India applies, however, and Japan only in its fascist period (prior to that, it was too isolated and non-imperial, in other words, localized, to evangelicize itself to others). China’s empire was not built on some notion that their religion or system of government was inherently superior to all others, it was just a gradual accumulation of power and control through bureaucracy. India has never been imperial, and historically was never united as a single nation or religion anyway. Hinduism is not a religion as much as a religious/philosophical (sanathana dharma) umbrella under which many hundreds of religions freely comingle. There are modern Hindu nationalists who are starting to make certain kinds of noises in this direction, but they don’t actually represent that Hindu tradition, but a distorted, modern quasi-fascist version of it, and even they limit the extent of their claims of Hindu superiority to India’s own borders (and not any kind of individual sect/religion within Hinduism).Hinduism has never been militaristic either, even in the face of militaristic muslim invaders.

Yes, I said there were a few others. I don’t think China or India applies, however, and Japan only in its fascist period (prior to that, it was too isolated and non-imperial, in other words, localized, to evangelicize itself to others). China’s empire was not built on some notion that their religion or system of government was inherently superior to all others, it was just a gradual accumulation of power and control through bureaucracy. India has never been imperial, and historically was never united as a single nation or religion anyway. Hinduism is not a religion as much as a religious/philosophical (sanathana dharma) umbrella under which many hundreds of religions freely comingle. There are modern Hindu nationalists who are starting to make certain kinds of noises in this direction, but they don’t actually represent that Hindu tradition, but a distorted, modern quasi-fascist version of it, and even they limit the extent of their claims of Hindu superiority to India’s own borders (and not any kind of individual sect/religion within Hinduism).Hinduism has never been militaristic either, even in the face of militaristic muslim invaders.

The point is, exceptionalism is a rather rare phenomena, and a dangerous one to boot. It breeds conflict both in religion and politics. No religion that claims to be a “religion of peace” can make exceptionalist claims, or pursue them, and not betray its own ideals.

The official Chinese ideology held that China’s culture was superior to the rest of the world, but it didn’t have to do anything to civilize everyone else — people would naturally gravitate to it and adopt its ways, as it happened in East Asia.

Even today, belief among the Japanese that they are superior to others is not found only among Japanese nationalists.

As for Hinduism, are there any non-Indians in the highest caste? Hindus would claim that Hindu’s superiority lies precisely in its ability at syncretism.

And let us not forget the Muslims, who divide the world between the House of Islam and the House of War. Guess which one is worth more in the eyes of God?

American exceptionialism is another form of chauvinism. Some chauvinisms are based on religion, others based on culture, and others on race or lineage. If exceptionalism is narrowly defined, perhaps there are not many examples of it, but there are plenty of chauvinisms around the world. (Including the 19th and 20th ce nationalisms of Europe.)

I’m not the one claiming that chauvinistic countries invariably tend towards militarism. Or that if it doesn’t tend towards militarism, it is therefore not chauvinistic or embracing of some sort of exceptionalism.

I think you are confusing internal attitudes with external actions. When we speak of exceptionalism, we are talking about a nation/religion’s actual relations to others. such that the kind of action one would condemn in others is praised in oneself because one considers oneself exceptional. The current torture debate is an example of this, in that Americans have always condemned the practice of torture in other countries, but praise it when we use it, because we are exceptional.

I am not pretending that human narcissism isn’t universal, and that various people/nations/religions don’t tend to take superior attitudes about themselves. The difference I am speaking of is when they take this to an extreme, in which all others are false and essentially worthless or evil, and only one’s own God/nation/person/ideology/system of goverment is true, and that this is objectively true, rather than simply a matter of personal subjective choice and happenstance. It’s the difference, say, between thinking of one’s own wife as the most beautiful woman in the world, and one’s own children as the brightest and best of all children, and actually expecting others to think this way as well. It’s generally a positive thing to think this way of those who are close to us and whom we love, but it is a dangerous thing if we expect everyone to acknowledge this as some kind of objective truth and thus treat our own family as utterly exceptional in every way.

In the same respect, its rather natural for Americans to think highly of themselves, just as it is for the Dutch, Swedish, Hindus, Indonesians, etc. But to insist that others should also adopt this attitude and emulate us and bow to us, or that we should actively try to convert the world to our ways is a form of insanity. As I’ve said, this kind of genuine exceptionalism, rather than just natural parochialism, is a dangerous atttitude and does lead to conflict, and at the level of nations, self-rationalized militaristic aggression.

In religion, there are those who take also take this exceptionalist attitude, primarily the latter two of the Abrahamic monotheistic faiths. The Jews also consider themselves superior, the “chosen people”, and they imagine they have a God-given right to take from others what they presume God wants them to have, but they moderate this attitude by not presuming that God desires to convert others to their way, just to push them out of the way when their presence is inconvenient.

The point is we are not talking about mere chauvinism when we speak of exceptionalism, but a kind of pathological narcissism that motivates one to impose oneself and one’s group on others.

I really appreciate this article. Several commentators have already hinted at the roots of the problem as I see it. The problem is that we are talking about what it means to have faith in one’s country, which is the definition of patriotism. Since we’re talking about faith, inevitably it leads to comparisons with religion. Indeed, Konstantin Pobedonostsev (Reflections of a Russian Statesman) wisely noted that no State could survive which did not share a common faith with her subjects. So a problem Americans face is: do they share the same faith as their government? What does it mean to believe in America? What is our ‘national idea’, our ‘narodnost’, as Russians of an earlier era might have put it?

Russian Orthodox theologians have for some time been trained to distinguish between the Orthodox faith in its totality (i.e. Holy Tradition), and the various ‘facts’ that are part of our tradition (I’m speaking as an Orthodox Christian). One will frequently find theologians who are very traditional in their faith overall, but who see no contradiction in admitting the ahistoricity of certain ‘facts’, such as the less plausible events of Old Testament history, the more fantastical elements in the Lives of the Saints, and so forth. Moreover, the theologian may be quite willing to accept one miracle in one story but reject a similar one in another, according to the authority which the author or text has within Tradition.

So it seems we have to learn how to have faith in America and in our national idea without sacrificing intellectual sobriety and a calm appreciation of facts as they are. Our faith must be strong, strong enough that we would even die for our country if we had to, but somehow this must not lead to fanaticism, that is, blindness to reality. A good friend of mine (a trained theologian as it happens) pointed out to me that what impressed him the most about the Saints is how normal and realistic they were, even as they were willing to undergo any hardship for the sake of the truth.

I believe the answer to this is to have a right understanding of our national idea, and then to rigorously apply the principles of that idea to our own history. We will certainly find that we fall short, but in the end this is no different from holding our own actions to the standards of our religious faith. I believe most of us would find we fall short in that respect, too, but just as this does not cause us to lose our faith, just so a proper understanding of America’s failures in history should not cause us to lose faith in the American idea.

Internal attitudes are to be judged by the external actions they produce. Chauvistic attitudes that do not produce exceptionalist actions are clearly not of the same order than those who do. As mentioned, a certain degree of internal chauvism is fine and even healthy – by internal I mean within one’s own mind, family, community, etc. When these attitudes become universalized and taken seriously in relation to those outside one’s own locality, this is where the dangers of exceptionalism come.

As I’ve said, it’s fine to think my own wife is the most beautiful woman in the world, to me personally, just as it’s fine for someone to think that Jesus is their savior or that they love America more than any other country, it’s the best place for them to live, etc. But if we externalize that chauvanism and try to literally impose it on the rest of the world, we create great trouble. If I insist that my wife should win every beauty contest, and star in Holywood movies, or that others should all convert to Christianity, and if the don’t they are damned, or that every country should submit to America’s will and emulate our way of life, or we are entitled to invade and conquer them by force, then our chauvinism has become a dangerous and pathological form of exceptionalism. Human beings need to learn to confine their chauvinism to its appropriately local and personal context, and not conflate it with universal values which empower them to impose them on all others.

Ultimately, it’s your tenuous link between American exceptionalism and Christianity that is objectionable. American exceptionalism has its roots more in a decadent Americanism arising from Protestantism than Christianity itself. It is an embodiment of the militant liberal democrat movement, whose members have not always been American. Pride and the will to power are not unique to flawed Christians–they are part of the ‘human condition’ in this life, and your genealogy fails.

And don’t tell me that you’d deny that you’d seek to impose your version of liberal morality, and the so-called rights which it respects, upon others. You may not believe that this empowers you or your country to seek to impose it outside your own society, but you would be sympathetic to outsiders who attempt to do so within their own.

I’m guessing you’re offended by the linkage to Christianity’s own exceptionalism because you are personally attached to the exceptionalist myth of Christianity, and don’t wish to see that exceptionalism in a negative light. Well, that ought to help ypu understand how American exceptionalists are attached to their own myths about their own superiority and don’t wish to see that as a negative attribute of their patriotism, when I think it’s clear that it is.

The linkage to Christianity is rather obvious. The United States was colonized by extremely devoted Christians who believed that coming to the New World was part of some Divine Destiny, and that the land had been given to them by God (who cleared the way by inflicting the natives with deadly diseases). This Christian faith in their exceptionalist destiny led them to approach the new world as conqueres (as did the Spanish colonists with their Catholic version of Christian exceptionalism). This deep religious belief in their own sectarian exceptionalism led directly to the adoption of Manifest Destiny as the union’s official religious catechism, which evolved over time into our God-Given mission to convert the world to Democracy, capitalism, and free trade, etc. This goes hand in hand with Christian missionary exceptionalism.

And pretending that Protestantism is somehow distinct from “Christianity itself” is rather bizarre, as if there’s really a meaningful difference. As noted, Catholic spaniards were just as aggressive if not more in their New World missionary zeal to impose Christianity and their own political system upon other nations, including England if you recall the whole point of the Spanish Armada. In fact, the tremendous religious wars of Europe spring from the common notion among Christians that their particular sect of Christianity is the one and only true one, thus entitling them to use the most horrific and blatantly “un-Christian” methods to suppress and convert them. What is that but an outgrowth of the fundamental attitude of many Christians that Christianity is inherently exceptional, and that its interests override all other considerations, moral and political? How else to explain the nearly universal use of torture by the Catholic Church in dealing with critics and opposing views? Only a belief in one’s own exceptionalism can justify this sort of complete contradiction to the core teachings of the very faith these people assumed they were protecting? How is this not merely a precursor in logic to the rationale that we can spread freedom and democracy through war, conquest and supporting dictatorships through the suppression of native freedoms? It’s not as if the leaders of our country have come from some other religious background and history. To keep one’s head firmly in the sand in regards to all this is not a surprise, as it has been the general Christian position for most of the last milennia, as crimes committed in the name of this “religion of peace” have been ignored or excused by the general reference to Christianity’s exceptional place in the world scheme, and God’s plan.

And no, I don’t seek to impose my version of liberal morality and rights upon others, so long as you don’t violate the laws and constitution of this country. I would certainly argue that others should adopt similar values to some degree, but forcing it upon others violates those values, and I don’t see how I can spread my values by violating them. Nor do I see how America can do the same, or Christianity. As for how others transform their societies, that depends on the means and the popular view of those countries. I certainly would not support a minority trying to impose its will by beleiving in their own exceptionalist right to violate their own liberal values in the process of creating a liberal society.

As an example, I wouldn’t support a violent liberal democratic revolution in the small nation of Bhutan, which is run as a Buddhist monarchy, since that regime is remarkably human and decent, and takes care of its people and their traditions quite well without any democratic institutions, and the popular will is to keep things that way.

The more you rant the more simplistic your argument. You argue that Christianity is intrinsically bound to exceptionalism and that exceptionalism inevitably leads to conquest. If that were the case then all committed Christians would fully support violent conquest as a means of evangelization. And of course they don’t. So what does that mean?

That simple observation decouples Christianity from conquest. It means that those who engaged in conquest would have engaged in it whether they were Christian or not. Converting pagans to Christianity may have been a rationalization, but it was not a prime motivator.

And it also means that Christianity is populated by sinners. Guess what? That’s not news to anyone. Including Christians.

And re: “…inflicting the natives with deadly diseases.” is perhaps the stupidest false accusation that is perpetrated by people whose range of reasoning extends from A to B. As if the 16th century Europeans had any idea about disease transmission. They could have just as easily been killed by disease organisms that were tolerated by natives. There was no scientific disease model then. Europeans were clueless about how people became sick. That phenomenon was strictly the luck of the draw.

That’s the problem with over-intellectualizing history — one seeks to reify a body of beliefs and come out with some essence, which is the source of all sorts of consequences. Hence, “poor genealogy.”

conradg:

In fact, the tremendous religious wars of Europe spring from the common notion among Christians that their particular sect of Christianity is the one and only true one, thus entitling them to use the most horrific and blatantly â€œun-Christianâ€ methods to suppress and convert them.

The use of force for coercion is contrary to Christian teaching, and has been for a while, even if certain rulers ignored this fact.

How else to explain the nearly universal use of torture by the Catholic Church in dealing with critics and opposing views?

Universal use? In all times and places? No. The use of punishment for ecclesiastical crimes is one thing. The adoption of torture as an accepted part of judicial procedure was due to the adoption of Roman law as the model, not due to anything intrinsic to Christianity. And if punishment was sanctioned, it was sanctioned for Catholics only. Your assertion is another exaggeration.

And no, I donâ€™t seek to impose my version of liberal morality and rights upon others, so long as you donâ€™t violate the laws and constitution of this country.

Meaningless, if the laws you wish to see in place, along with your constitutional interpretation, embody your version of liberal morality.

Admittedly I am simplifying for the sake of argument a complex situation. I too consdier war and torture and forced conversion contrary to Church teaching. And yet, these are the methods by which Christianity was spread. Pretending they are abberations is sticking one’s head in the sand. One must come to understand how these perversions came to be not only commonplace, but central to the spread of this “religion of peace”. I’m suggesting that the very argument of exceptionalism that is central to so much of Christian dogma is very much to blame for this, just as the same exceptionalism turns Islam into an aggressive war religion, and it turns American Democracy into a pervesion of its own ideals. That simple point has much support I think, even if how it actually works out is quite complex.

And it is simply true that committed CHristians did support violent conquest as a means of evangelization, from medievel times to the present. It’s not the only means they have used, but it’s why the more committed the Christian, the more likely they are to have been supportive of the war in Iraq and the use of torture. This is a very sad fact, but true. Of course its not true of every Christian, as Danile’s opposition is testiment to, but it remains true that the dominant militant outlook of American exceptionalist foreigh policy is most popularly supported by those who consider themselves the most committed Christians. That there are many exceptions does not hide the fact that many Christians are attracted to American exceptionalism because of their own devotion to exceptionalism as a basic outlook on life, stemming from Christianity itself, however perverted that Christianity might be.

The earliest Christians were the victims of torture and violence, and they renounced such things. They were at least relatively true to Christian teachings on these things, and did not emphasize the exceptionalist creed. After becoming the state religion of the very empire that had persectued them, all this changed, and Christianity became increasingly wedded to notions of worldly exceptionalism, and did indeed adopt the very methods used against them, expanding them to use religious exceptionalism as a rallying cry for warfare, conquest, and the forced coercion of foreign lands and peoples. How do you think Europe became Christian? Do you really think it spread by peaceful means? Of course not. Bloody conquest and bloody conversions were the means, both in Europe and the new world. Having accomplished so much evangelization by force, standing in the superior position, Christianity has not had to pursue those means exclusively, but even the peaceful means of spreading Christianity have ridden on the back of the economic conquests of international capitalism as it quickly erodes and destroys local religions and cultures around the world. As mentioned, this is both an ally and a rival to Christianity in the modern age.

The point that Christianity is populated by sinners is of course true, and part of Christian teachings. The whole point of Christian teaching, however, is a way to repent from sin, and a series of strictures that prevents one from sinning greatly. How do Christians get around these strictures then and resort to war, torture, subjugation of the poor and exploitation of power? By resorting to exceptionalism, by claiming that they are exempt because Christianity represents the one and only true God, and therefore it can employ means and methods that might seem crude in the short run, but ensure a universal Christian world in the long run. And in that they have been largely correct. Christianity is the world’s largest and most politically dominant religion. And yet, it has corrupted itself in the process, to the point where it is virtually unrecognizable in most of its manifestations. This is what happens when any movement, religious or political, sells out its own values and ideals for the sake of worldly success. Christianity would be far better off if it had remained a small but pure religious movement that disdained merging itself with Caesar and adopting the very methods it originally opposed in order to acheive worldly success and “converts”.

And tedschan, the Catholic chruch adopted the use of torture universally during the middle ages in order to supress dissent. It institutionalized this of course in the centuries of the spanish inquistiion. It was official church policy, not something that renegades used without sanction. Of course it is had precedent in the Roman empire, but that’s just the point. To officially adopt the very barbaric practices of cruetly that the founder of one’s religion considered anathema, that were visted iupon him and his early followers without mercy, is a profound perversion of the very religion and values the Church is supposed to uphold. What allows for this? One can’t point to Roman precedent, since that is the very paganism Christianity opposed. One must but the blame on Christian exceptionalist dogma, which made all such perversions acceptable, just as American torturers consider the use of torture acceptable as long as we are the ones employing in our “just cause”.

“Meaningless, if the laws you wish to see in place, along with your constitutional interpretation, embody your version of liberal morality”

The liberal constitution and its laws were put in place in this country through the will of the people, not by being imposed by force. Study a little history, will you? Of course, I will grant that America has often compromised its values, even perverted them, particularly in the pursuit of its own manfest exceptionalist destiny. At least we have not begun torturing conservatives.

It institutionalized this of course in the centuries of the spanish inquistiion.

The Spanish Inquisition was an instrument of the Spanish state, not of the Church. Torture was not used to suppress dissent, but to get information or confessions. Other punishments were given for those proven of heresy, which was deemed a crime against the state because of the Christian nature of those polities. And also because heretics like the Cathar actually posed a threat to the public order with their beliefs and practices.

The liberal constitution and its laws were put in place in this country through the will of the people, not by being imposed by force. Study a little history, will you?

With regards to constitutional interpreation and legislating from the bench-maybe you should research what conservatives are saying about the constitution, the Federal Government and the Federal judiciary before you assume you know what you’re responding to. The one who should study a little history is you, given your ignorance of the Spanish inquisition.

To officially adopt the very barbaric practices of cruetly that the founder of oneâ€™s religion considered anathema, that were visted iupon him and his early followers without mercy,

The Church does not outlaw all forms of punishment, even if its Founder was put to death unjustly. Exceptionalism is no more the cause than the union of Church and State, the recovery of Roman law, etc. You haven’t proven your your account, or ruled out the other causes–just a facile criticism designed to back up your own moral and religious stance.

I wrote that the church had institutionalized torture “in the centuries of the spanish inquisition”, not limiting these things to do the spanish institution, which of course had the full blessings of the church, and was carried out by Church officials, so it’s hardly an excuse that the spanish state sponsored it. There were inquistions of this type throughout the Catholic world, not just in spain. The spanish inquisition was far from the first, but was inspired by a practices that were already widespread and completely endorsed and encouraged by the Church, and of course carried out by devout Christians. The notion that the purpose of the inquisitions was not to supress dissent is rather bizarre. What else is heresy but dissent, in that heresy is defined by the Church as departure from essential Church doctrines? Of course heretics “posed a threat to the public order”, in that the public order was maintained by the Church’s moral codes, which somehow seem to have neglected the principles of unconditional love and forgiveness taught by Jesus. How did they miss that? Well, by considering themselves exceptional, the worldly emodiments and instruments of God’s will and grace.

And of course torture was used to extract false confessions – confession of heresy, in other words, that required people to retract their dissenting views. Are you saying that if we were to torture Republicans in congress who criticized Obama, that this would not be considered by you the suppression of dissent? What strange planet are you living on?

As regards the criticism of the federal government’s growing power, there is of course a means provided for reversing that course – the ballot box. Losing elections sucks, I know, but not even the greatest of Republican heroes, from Nixon to Reagan to Bush did much to reverse that course, and in fact merely accelerated it. But none of that has anything to do with the accusation you made that I will impose my liberal morality on you. You can be as illiberal as you like in your private life. Or do you mean that you want the right to, say discriminate in housing againt blacks and jews or own slaves? What exactly is it that you wish to do that you are prevented from doing by these liberal impositions?

Of course the Church does not forbid the state from carrying out punishments, but it should not be involved in carrying it out either. Torture is utterly against the very creed of Christianity. That the Church would sanction and participate in it is testament to its not being an actual vehicle of Christ, but like everything else man-made, merely a terribly fallible and often delusional tool of human egotism. Exceptionalism is at the root of this problem, the notion that some of us are exempt from the very codes of law and morality that keep us aligned to God, because we are the embodiment of law and morality and Godliness. When the Church believes itself to be the embodiment of these things, and thus exempt from being subject to them, it commits the greatest heresy and blasphemy of all, and of course this leads to ruin and moral despair.

As for “proof”, examine for yourself the attitudes encouraged by the exceptionalist creed of so many Christians. Where has it led them? Open your eyes.

The notion that the purpose of the inquisitions was not to supress dissent is rather bizarre. What else is heresy but dissent, in that heresy is defined by the Church as departure from essential Church doctrines? Of course heretics â€œposed a threat to the public orderâ€, in that the public order was maintained by the Churchâ€™s moral codes, which somehow seem to have neglected the principles of unconditional love and forgiveness taught by Jesus. How did they miss that? Well, by considering themselves exceptional, the worldly emodiments and instruments of Godâ€™s will and grace.

And I should take you seriously as a spokesperson for Christ because? Punishment of crimes is not contrary to “unconditional love and forgiveness” — you may deny that heresy is a crime against the state in a Christian polity, but you have no authority to make that authentic Christian teaching, or evidence from scripture or tradition.

There is only exceptionalism as you define it if there is a double standard. There isn’t.

As regards the criticism of the federal governmentâ€™s growing power, there is of course a means provided for reversing that course – the ballot box.
Spoken like someone satisfied with the status quo. The ballot box isn’t’ enough, unfortunately.

To sum, tracing the evils of x, y, etc. to “Christian exceptionalism” fails because

(1) It does establish the causality, nor does it acknowledge that other causes and factors lead to those actions being done.

(2) It relies upon a false presentation of what Christ taught.

Christ did not leave a political treatise for Christians to figure out how to create a Christian polity, nor did he give an exhaustive list of laws to be implemented. Nor did He condemn everything passed on by humans as being wholly false and wrong. Instead, he left the Holy Spirit, and a living authority. Hence, the growing pains of the Church once Christians became a numerical majority and assumed leadership positions within their societies–they needed to figure some of these details out, and what human traditions could be reconciled with Christ’s teachings, and they did not always succeed.

I want to thank you for exemplifying the absurdity of church apologia and denialism. You should really study the literature on cults. One of the most prominent characteristics of negative religious cults is exceptionalism, the deluded belief that the cult has the one and only “truth”, and that this excuses all faults and even crimes committed along the way. The capacity of cultists to deny and righteously immunize themselves and their leaders from criticism is astonishing. The exceptionalist creed makes all things possible, regardless of evidence and reason. But even more so, it is characteristic of a degernate, cult mentality. Major religions such as those in the Abrahamic faiths are not immune to cultism, or to the exceptionalist creed that fuels cultism. Your arguments are a great example of how the cultist will defend the exceptionalism of his cult against all evidence showing how that very exceptionalism leads to gross errors and crimes, an arrogance that is immune to criticism. It’s a vicious, self-enclosed circle of logic, but fortunately it is possible to observe that wherever cults take on these kinds of exceptionalist creeds, a similar pattern of behavior follows. When the cult is large and powerful, the results are usually deadly and disastrous. Beware this kind of thinking. Exceptionalism, almost without exception, leads to gross error, regardless of the innate value of what is being held up as exceptional.

No response to the historical arguments? Have you showed that your liberal morality and political theory was present in Christ’s teaching from the very beginning? Not at all. Yours is a fine example of dogmatism–you stick to your thesis, even though you haven’t done the work to back it up. It’s a simple-minded genealogical argument that doesn’t address the possibility of other causes being at work in history. As usual, I’ll let an impartial reader decide whether you’ve made your case or not.

You haven’t made any historical arguments worth refuting. You merely excuse it all, and somehow blame the Church’s use of torture on the Roman Empire. And then you suggest I haven’t “proven” my case. Now you say that Christ never taught to love your enemies, to love others unconditionally, to forgive, to not practice violence, to show tolerance and love to the sick, the poor, the downtrodden, the innocent. And then I’m somehow rewriting Christianity’s teachings in my own “liberal” image. This is farcical, but nonethless highly educational.